I just reread Deathly Hallows while my power was out due to hurricane ike and I found something confusing.
To posess the power of the Elder Wand you must defeat the previous user. Grindewald stole the wand from Gregorovich...he didn't defeat gregorovich. So...if you think about it like that, the one who beat Gregorovich was Voldemort and the wand should have listened to him .
What are you thoughts? _________________ Through me the way into the suffering city,
Through me the way to eternal pain,
Through me the way that runs among the lost.
Justice urged on my high artificier.
"Beating" doesn't mean killing, it means taking the wand from the owner. In fact, the first time the wand was taken (at least according to the tale of Beedle the Bard) it was stolen as well.
Harry too, took Malfoy's wand from his hand and thus "won" it; I think that's similar to stealing it as well. _________________ "The best of us must sometimes eat our words." -- Albus Dumbledore
But he knocked Malfoy over with a spell first. Voldemort "stole" it from dumbledore's tomb. Which by that logic means he stole it from Malfoy's rightful posession. _________________ Through me the way into the suffering city,
Through me the way to eternal pain,
Through me the way that runs among the lost.
Justice urged on my high artificier.
Harry took Malfoy's wand from his possession, I don't think it had anything to do with him knocking Malfoy over. Likewise, Grindelwald took the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch's possession. Voldemort, however, did not take the Elder Wand from Malfoy's possession, as it was not in his possession to begin with. _________________ "The best of us must sometimes eat our words." -- Albus Dumbledore
The story of the Elder wand in teh book is just a legend, a myth, a fairy tale.. it has become twisted and changed through the years.
The cloak, according to the story, is supposed to be unpenetrable, but Mad-Eye Moody can see through it.
The stone is supposed to bring back the dead, but it doesn't really, not in the form you would think.
Obviously the story isn't completely accurate.
It doesn't matter how the wand is taken, just so long as it is. _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
kwidditch is bang of with the "besting" term. voldemort in know way bested draco by taking the wand from an inanimate corpse. but grindelwald bested gregorovitch by stealing it out from under his nose. he must have also bested him in finding out he had it...I don't think gregorovitch was bragging about it...but I could be wrong. harry bested draco by disarming him, even if it was only knocking it out of his hand. _________________ They say home is where the heart is, so your real home's in your chest. --Captain Hammer
I dont understand it quite that good either. I understood that you had to defeat or take the elder wand to have its powers but how did dumbledore acquire it from grindlewald if the elder wand was undefeatable?
I dont understand it quite that good either. I understood that you had to defeat or take the elder wand to have its powers but how did dumbledore acquire it from grindlewald if the elder wand was undefeatable?
It is defeatable... otherwise, how else would it be able to switch hands and allegiances at all? _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
The way the wand changes hands is very easy. Imagine that wands have... to find a proper word... soul. When someone defeats someone else who has the wand, the wand's soul turns and gets attached to the person. So, if a third wants to take the wand to his property, he will have to defeat the rightful owner of the wand first, in one way or another. Throughout the entire series, Voldemort didn't defeat Harry once. And surely not while the Elder Wand's "soul" was bound on Harry. As Harry says at the book, to hold the wand and be able to cast spells doesn't matter. Voldemort never defeated Harry while the wand was on his ownership, thus he never truely owned the wand.
Grindelwald managed to take the wand from its previous owner despite the previous' owner's will. This, since Grindelwald had the wand, means that he took it. He beat Gregorovich by taking the wand off his possession. When Voldemort killed Grindelwald, the wand's "soul" was already bound to Draco, about to change within moments - since the moment Grindelwald was killed, Harry was at the Malfoy Manor, where he took the wand despite his previous owners' will a few minutes later.
TO GINNYX:
The ressurection stone is working. It is creating a passageway through the living and the dead, making dead able to talk with the living without the necessity to be ghosts. The incident with Cadmus' girlfriend, I am sure, was simply because of the girl's personality. Since the stone works like the Priori Incantatem (did I spell it correctly? o.O) the people that are brought back retain the physical appearance and personality of the person they are bringing back. So, logically, the only reason the woman was sad was because she personally didn't want to come back. Now, as long as the rift between life and death allows people to talk to dead people, as long as they wish, the Stone works. It may not bring dead people into life, but it creates a rift so the dead can enter the world of the living. Thus, the stone - does - beat Death, as Cadmus so much wished to be able to do.
The cloak is not meant to act as an anti-tracking-by-all-means device. It is supposed to hide a person's appearance. If it was supposed to make the person untrackable, then it wouldn't trigger the charm in Hogsmeade; Dumbledore wouldn't be able to use the human-tracking spell he used in the chamber of Erised to spot Harry; and sure as hell Moody's enchanted eye would not be able to see through the cloak. So, in short, what makes the cloak really different from other cloaks is that is impenetratable by spells. Which means, that if a spell was hurled at the cloak, the cloak would possibly not be harmed. Most likely the spell would pass through the cloak as if it didn't exist and fire off in the distance - probably hitting the person who is inside the cloak, if he/she is not fast enough to avoid it. So, the cloak theoretically works too. Oh, it is also made by a material that doesn't wear off in time - but that could be an everyday material that would be just rare. I guess Malkin would have some of this material to stick to some really special robes, for the wizards who have money to spare in extra comfort.
If Dumbledore's speculating is true, the mythical part in the Hallows is that they "met Death on a bridge on a shiny day". Death is an element of nature, not a person. It's like trying to personalise Time, or Love.
Grumble... I started off with writing 5 lines and... oh well. _________________ Fact 1: Moody rocks your socks. And mine too.
Fact 2: Ron rocks everyone's socks. Except Dobby's.
Fact 3: Harry and Hermione are not meant to be together. :'< Stop the myth-spreading.
Fact 4: Snape > James.
Fact 5: Grindelwald > Voldemort.
TO GINNYX:
The ressurection stone is working. It is creating a passageway through the living and the dead, making dead able to talk with the living without the necessity to be ghosts. The incident with Cadmus' girlfriend, I am sure, was simply because of the girl's personality. Since the stone works like the Priori Incantatem (did I spell it correctly? o.O) the people that are brought back retain the physical appearance and personality of the person they are bringing back. So, logically, the only reason the woman was sad was because she personally didn't want to come back. Now, as long as the rift between life and death allows people to talk to dead people, as long as they wish, the Stone works. It may not bring dead people into life, but it creates a rift so the dead can enter the world of the living. Thus, the stone - does - beat Death, as Cadmus so much wished to be able to do.
The cloak is not meant to act as an anti-tracking-by-all-means device. It is supposed to hide a person's appearance. If it was supposed to make the person untrackable, then it wouldn't trigger the charm in Hogsmeade; Dumbledore wouldn't be able to use the human-tracking spell he used in the chamber of Erised to spot Harry; and sure as hell Moody's enchanted eye would not be able to see through the cloak. So, in short, what makes the cloak really different from other cloaks is that is impenetratable by spells. Which means, that if a spell was hurled at the cloak, the cloak would possibly not be harmed. Most likely the spell would pass through the cloak as if it didn't exist and fire off in the distance - probably hitting the person who is inside the cloak, if he/she is not fast enough to avoid it. So, the cloak theoretically works too. Oh, it is also made by a material that doesn't wear off in time - but that could be an everyday material that would be just rare. I guess Malkin would have some of this material to stick to some really special robes, for the wizards who have money to spare in extra comfort.
None of those things has anything to do with what I said, lol.
I didn't say the cloak was untrackable. I didn't even use that word, nor a word meaning that.
I said it was unpenetrable to see through, according to the story in Tales of Beedle to Bard... Death himself couldn't see through it. Besides Moody being able to see through it, DD could also use the Homenum Revelio to see him and Draco was able to petrify him through the cloak in HBP. So we know spells do work and the cloak is penetrable. The cloak wasn't perfect as people, for some reason, assume it is.
The Resurrection Stone was supposed to resurrect the dead, according to the story in Beedle the Bard.
The stone was supposed to bring back the dead. Yes, it works like the Priori Incantatem spell, but that's not what the brother had in mind when he asked for that. In the story, it never says how the girlfriend came back, only that she didn't feel as if she belonged and she was seperated as though by a veil. We don't find they come back as more of a shadow until the end when Harry is in the forest and we see it for ourselves what they mean by "veil."
Neither is true, making the story somewhat false or misconstrued. As with all tales, they get changed throughout it's retelllings. It's the same with the Elder Wand. The brother asked for a wand that couldn't be beaten. However, the wand keeps getting stolen or disarmed, so it is not unbeatable. Nor, is it always won in a duel, either. The eldest brother had left loopholes in his own request and the wand was able to switch allegiances when a duel hadn't even taken place. _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
If we assume it with Dumbledore's theory, the cloak is an artefact made by wizards. So was Moody's eye. Possibly Moody should be able to see - everything - that was invisible. I bet that, if he had the eye before he saw someone dying, he could see the Thestrals too. But anyway. The myth part of the Hallows was that they met Death in a bridge - as I said. So if the items were mere mortal items - just like Horcruxes are a magical invention, which means that someone invented these too - there was bound to be something that could beat the cloak. This could be Moody's eye. Since, throughout the series, it is pretty much nothing seen that can resist Moody's eye. Invisibility cloaks, the back of his head, walls, boxes, invisibility charms, etc etc. I guess same would apply to Thestrals and the third brother's cloak too.
The Tales of Beedle the Bard say that Cadmus wanted to defeat death. In a sort, he did so. Even though it definitely ressurected nobody, it worked in a way that the dead could still contact the living, despite the veil that was between them. I guess when someone names an artifact "Ressurection Stone" lots of things are expected. But the stone did give its wielder the ability to be with the dead as if they were alive, even though it never stood up to its name - Ressurection. To me, it's more of the opposite. Harry observes this while being on the way to the forest - "they were calling him". All the stone ever managed was either call the dead in the world of the living, or work according to the Priori Incantatem - make a shadow that holds the personality of the person that is wished to be seen, and their image. _________________ Fact 1: Moody rocks your socks. And mine too.
Fact 2: Ron rocks everyone's socks. Except Dobby's.
Fact 3: Harry and Hermione are not meant to be together. :'< Stop the myth-spreading.
Fact 4: Snape > James.
Fact 5: Grindelwald > Voldemort.
yea but i thought it said in the book it was undefeatable
DH ch 21, pg 407 (US ed)
"So the oldest brother, who was a combative man, asked for a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must always win duels for it's owner, a wand worthy of a wizard who had conquered Death!..."
The Elder brother didn't conquer death.
The story is obviously wrong, besides. I mean, it's a book of fairy tales, the story most likely got twisted and changed through the years. Death made the wand... really? You believe that? _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
im not trying to argue with you or anything but how do you know that the brother didn't conquer? but the wand should be the strongest therefore undefeatable
im not trying to argue with you or anything but how do you know that the brother didn't conquer? but the wand should be the strongest therefore undefeatable
I know he didn't conquer death because he died.
DH ch 21, pg 408 (US edition)
"And so Death took the first brother for his own."
Death won. He outwitted the elder brother when the thief stole the wand and slit the elder brother's throat.
The thief didn't duel the elder brother, he stole it while the brother was sleeping.
The elder brother did not conquer death. _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
Every wand does change hands through violence. So does the Elder Wand - it differs in nothing to other wands.
Imagine that we are in an RPG. Every wizard has certain "stats". These stats could be stats like, reflexes, intelligence - strength with spells, etc. All the Elder Wand would do is boost the strength of the spells cast immensely, if it could be boosted. So it's all in all just raw power. ;P _________________ Fact 1: Moody rocks your socks. And mine too.
Fact 2: Ron rocks everyone's socks. Except Dobby's.
Fact 3: Harry and Hermione are not meant to be together. :'< Stop the myth-spreading.
Fact 4: Snape > James.
Fact 5: Grindelwald > Voldemort.
Ollivander says, ""Whether it needs to pass by murder, I do not know. Its history is bloody, but that may be due to the fact that it is such a desirable object, and arouses such passions in wizards..."
It's not really violence that makes the wand change hands... a simple disarming spell seems to do the trick just fine. _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
With violence, I mean, anything that takes the wand from its previous master despite his/her own will. A disarming spell, stealing the wand from the laboratory of a wandmaker, a killing curse... anything, really. _________________ Fact 1: Moody rocks your socks. And mine too.
Fact 2: Ron rocks everyone's socks. Except Dobby's.
Fact 3: Harry and Hermione are not meant to be together. :'< Stop the myth-spreading.
Fact 4: Snape > James.
Fact 5: Grindelwald > Voldemort.
Stealing isn't violent, it doesn't even require any kind of force. It's just wrong. However, I think a stunning spell was involved.... I'd have to reread the parts... it's sort of broken up through the chapter into pieces... _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
Well, stealing sure as hell is "despite its previous owner's will". Y'know, the one who would have stolen the wand "won" it from its previous owner, thus taken it despite his/her will. The wand would see that as "victory" over the previous owner - see Draco and Dumbledore. A simple disarming charm did it! _________________ Fact 1: Moody rocks your socks. And mine too.
Fact 2: Ron rocks everyone's socks. Except Dobby's.
Fact 3: Harry and Hermione are not meant to be together. :'< Stop the myth-spreading.
Fact 4: Snape > James.
Fact 5: Grindelwald > Voldemort.
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
